Brusha Brusha Brusha

I saw Joan Lunden on The View the other day. (Hey, I was folding laundry and there was nothing else on, okay!?) Apparently, having seven children and being in the media spotlight makes her a great spokesperson for the American Dental Association. She wants to get out the word about dental health, which is great and all, but she suggested that parents stop giving bottled water to their children - why?

Because it doesn't contain fluoride.

woppitywoppitywoppity <--sound of my head shaking in disbelief

I don't care how many kids Ms. Lunden has - she is seriously misinformed about fluoride and just fed that misinformation to millions of viewers. Way to go, Joan!

Fluoride is toxic, even in small amounts. You're supposed to call poison control if your child digests more than a pea-sized bit of toothpaste! The ADA actually has stopped recommending using fluoridated water to make infant formula, because studies have shown that giving fluoride to babies whose teeth are just forming causes dental fluorisis - white, yellow and brown spotted and pitted enamel.

(Now if they'd just stop recommending formula altogether...!)

Think fluoride is good for you? Well read on:

"The fluoride added to 90% of the drinking water is hydrofluoric acid, which is a compund of fluorine that is a chemical byproduct of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons manufacturing. Such fluoride is manmade. In this form, fluoride has no nutrient value whatsoever. It is one of the most caustic of industrial chemicals. Fluoride is the active toxin in rat poison and cockroach powder. Hydrofluoric acid is used to refine high octane gasoline, to make fluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons for freezers and air conditioners, and to manufacture computer screens, florescent light bulbs, semiconductors, plastics, herbicides -- and toothpaste. It also has the ability to burn flesh to the bone, destroy eyes and sear lungs so that victims drown in their own body fluid." *

Yikes!

Of course, now you're going to say, "But they've been putting fluoride in our water for over fifty years now! It has to be safe! And hasn't the rate of tooth decay gone down?"

Yes. But remember, correlation does not equal causation. Studies done by the World Health Organization have actually shown that tooth decay has decreased at the same rate in countries whether water was fluoridated or not. Other studies have also shown that rates of tooth decay haven't gone up when fluoride was taken out of the water (and sometimes - the rate of decay even goes down!)

On top of it's ineffectiveness, fluoride is still being added to our water, our vitamins, processed foods, soda, tea, you name it. What is it doing to our bodies? It penetrates teeth, yes... but guess what? It also penetrates and stays in our bones. Yummy! Fluoride is actually contributing to osteoporosis. Studies have shown that it may be lowering fertility rates and interfering with the production of melatonin (it's a hormone that helps regulate the onset of puberty.) It also depresses the immune system by suppressing antibody formation and may increase the risk of cancerous tumors.

Many European countries have banned the use of fluoride altogether, and there are actually few countries that use fluoridation. The science behind this mass dosing of our entire country with a potentially toxic substance is not only dubious - it's highly unethical.

So why is it still being used in the U.S.? I bet you've already guessed. Money! Fluoridation is a multi-billion dollar industry, and thanks to Joan Lunden, now even more sheeple will have their belief in the whitewashed version of the truth about fluoride in our drinking water reinforced. Thanks, Joan!

I will say this - I'm glad we're on a system with well water now. My water isn't bleached and chlorinated and stripped of all its nutrients. We're not being exposed to fluoride anymore through our skin, in the shower, in our cooking water. And we drink bottled, filtered water - with no added fluoride, and use unfluoridated toothpaste.

I'm angry with Joan for spouting the party line and I feel bad for her seven kids. Elizabeth Hasselbeck went on and on about how Joan was such a good mother, and a shining example for all mothers out there. I couldn't help rolling my eyes and swearing at the television. Look, if you want to really be a good mother, do your research. Don't follow mainstream ideas just because they're mainstream. Don't do everything your doctor tells you, just because they say so.

The truth really IS out there.

You just have to open your eyes and look.

Vaccinations: Where Do You Put Your Faith?

There was an article today in Yahoo news about parents who are claiming religious exemptions to vaccination, when in actuality their religion doesn't prohibit vaccination. The implication is, of course, that these parents are doing something wrong. The article seems to say that these parents are putting not only their own children at risk, but other children as well.

I don't immunize my children. It isn't because I'm a lazy or neglectful parent. In fact, the opposite is true. I've done extensive research on the subject and have come to the personal conclusion that the possible risks (known and unknown) of the vaccines themselves are worse than the diseases they are trying to prevent.

Measles, mumps, diptheria, whooping cough--they're all diseases that rarely cause fatalities, and usually only in the immunodepressed, the extremely young (newborns, for example... who can't get vaccinated for these things) or the very old. Polio, which is the big, scary one, only causes paralysis in a very, very, very small percentage of cases. And in those cases, most people who do get the paralytic version of polio actually fully recover.

Maybe it's my Aquarian nature, but I'm not the type of person who is going to follow along with the rest of the sheep just because the government says so. I do believe vaccination programs were begun with the best of intentions--but we all know that good intentions don't always lead where we think they will.

I think the vaccination program is, like any bureaucratically run organization, bloated, outdated, and in need of a major overhaul or an outright burial. There have been many studies done that prove vaccines aren't as effective as the government would like you to believe.

From personal experience, I can tell you that I was vaccinated for rubella (which is a disease that can cause harm to a fetus if contracted by the mother) after having my first child because according to the titers, I wasn't immune. Three years later, I had my second child. According to the titers, I STILL wasn't immune to rubella. So I got another shot. Seven years later, I had my third child. Guess what? Still wasn't immune. I've had a total of four rubella shots in 10 years, and the levels still show that I'm not immune the disease.

The truth is, vaccination itself has become a huge money maker, for doctors as well as for individual states. Doctors actually get bonuses if their vaccination rates remain above a certain level. The federal government gives out tons of money to the states to offer "free" vaccinations to families. And I'm not supposed to be suspicious of this huge pharmaceutical money machine? Hmm... I don't think so.

For me, the most basic human right is personal freedom. I'm not against vaccinations themselves. If you want to vaccinate your child against the evil chicken pox - go right ahead. I will support your right to do so. But I should be supported in my decision not to vaccinate as well. Everyone should have a right to make their own health care choices, whether they go against what Mr. Bureaucrat says we should do or not.

Fortunately, I live in Michigan, where my right to choose for myself and my children is actually supported. Unfortunately, Michigan is one of only seventeen states in the union that will allow that sort of exemption. In the rest of the country, as the Yahoo article points out, parents are forced to lie and claim vaccination is against their religion.

The article says:

"Do I think that religious exemptions have become the default? Absolutely," said Dr. Paul Offit, head of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia and one of the harshest critics of the anti-vaccine movement. He said the resistance to vaccines is "an irrational, fear-based decision."

One of the harshest critics of the anti-vaccine movement is the head of infectious disease? Oh what a surprise. How much is this doc accepting in "bonuses" to keep the immunization rate high, I wonder? As for the decision not to vaccinate being irrational and fear based? I'd like to ask Dr. Offit if he'd like a mirror. Because his response is the most irrational and fear-based one I've ever heard. It goes against the evidence, and frankly, I think the doc's a little afraid of getting thrown off the vaccination money train.

(And don't get me started on Dr. Offit. He's one of the holders of the rotavirus patent. The one that was originally pulled off the market? Yeah that one. According to the Wall Street Journal, he gets paid to teach other doctors about the "safety" of vaccines. And he owns stock in Merck, who manufactures the rotavirus vaccine now on the market--but he's on the CDC advisory board. Holy conflict of interests, Batman! Oh, and that particularly vaccine costs 5x as much as most vaccines.)

Let's look at the "facts" Dr. Offit and his cronies seem to want to believe. If vaccinations are as effective as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services cite, then what is Dr. Offit afraid of, exactly? The CDC claims (depending on the vaccination) a 97-100% success rate.

Then why does the doctor from the Yahoo article say:

"When you choose not to get a vaccine, you're not just making a choice for yourself, you're making a choice for the person sitting next to you," said Dr. Lance Rodewald, director of the CDC's Immunization Services Division.

If vaccines were anywhere near the 100% effectiveness they claim, there should be no worries about those who have already been vaccinated. They're protected for life -- right?

The truth that Dr. Offit and other vaccination proponents don't want you to know is that contracting these childhood diseases - measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough - during childhood actually gives someone lifetime immunity to that disease.

Most of these involve a few days to a week of illness and are milder for children than for adults. In fact, immunizations often just prolong the contraction of these diseases, and when someone's supposed "lifetime" immunity from a vaccination runs out and they get the mumps, for example, an adult man could end up sterile.

So since vaccinations provide limited duration immunity, may contain potentially dangerous and toxic chemicals, and often only prolong getting the disease it's supposed to prevent, it seems to me the only rational decision available to a parent would be to waive immunizations.

If it comes down to lying and saying it's a "faith-based" decision, or putting my faith in Dr. Offit and the Vaccinations=Money Squad...

I'm all for lying.